QUIMEN V. CA- Easement

LEAST DAMAGE > SHORTEST DISTANCE
When the easement may be established on any of several tenements surrounding the dominant estate, the one where the way is shortest and will cause the least damage should be chosen. However, as elsewhere stated, if these two (2) circumstances do not concur in a single tenement, the way which will cause the least damage should be used, even if it will not be the shortest.

FACTS:

Anastacia Quimen, together with her 3 brothers and sister, inherited a piece of property in Bulacan. They agreed to subdivide the property equally among themselves. The shares of Anastacia and 3 other siblings were next to the municipal road. Anastacia’s was at the extreme left of the road while the lots on the right were sold by her brothers to Catalina Santos. A portion of the lots behind Anastacia’s were sold by her (as her brother’s adminstratix) brother to Yolanda.

Yolanda was hesitant to buy the back property at first because it d no access to the public road. Anastacia prevailed upon her by assuring her that she would give her a right of way on her adjoining property (which was in front) for p200 per square meter.

Yolonda constructed a house on the lot she bought using as her passageway to the public highway a portion of anastacia’s property. But when yolanda finally offered to pay for the use of the pathway anastacia refused to accept the payment. In fact she was thereafter barred by Anastacia from passing through her property.

After a few years, Yolanda purchased another lot from the Quimens (a brother), located directly behind the property of her parents who provided her a pathway gratis et amore between their house, extending about 19m from the lot of Yolanda behind the sari-sari store of one brother, and Anastacia’s perimeter fence.

In 1987, Yolanda filed an action with the proper court praying for a right of way through Anastacia’s property. The proposed right of way was at the extreme right of Anastacia’s property facing the public highway, starting from the back of the sari-sari store and extending inward by 1m to her property and turning left for about 5m to avoid the store in order to reach the municipal road. The way was unobstructed except for an avocado tree standing in the middle.

The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, explaining that the right of way through the brother’s property was a straight path and to allow a detour by cutting through Anastacia’s property would no longer make the path straight. They held that it was more practical to extend the existing pathway to the public road by removing that portion of the store blocking the path as that was the shortest route to the public road and the least prejudicial to the parties concerned than passing through Anastacia’s property.

CA reversed and held that Yolanda was entitled to a right of way on Anastacia’s property. The court, however, did not award damages to her and held that Anastacia was not in bad faith when she resisted the claim.

Anastacia went to the SC alleging that her lot should be considered as a servient estate despite the fact that it does not abut or adjoin the property of private respondent. She denies ever promising Yolonda a right of way.

Anastacia also argues that when Yolanda purchased the second lot, the easement of right of way she provided was ipso jure extinguished as a result of the merger of ownership of the dominant and the servient estates in one person so that there was no longer any compelling reason to provide private respondent with a right of way as there are other surrounding lots suitable for the purpose.

She also strongly maintains that the proposed right of way is not the shortest access to the public road because of the detour and that, moreover, she is likely to suffer the most damage as she derives a net income of P600.00 per year from the sale of the fruits of her avocado tree, and considering that an avocado has an average life span of seventy (70) years, she expects a substantial earning from it.

ISSUE:

1) Whether or not there was a valid grant of an easement
2) Whether or not the right of way proposed by Yolonda is the least onerous/least prejudicial to the parties

HELD: YES to both

1) A right of way in particular is a privilege constituted by covenant or granted by law to a person or class of persons to pass over another’s property when his tenement is surrounded by realties belonging to others without an adequate outlet to the public highway. The owner of the dominant estate can demand a right of way through the servient estate provided he indemnifies the owner thereof for the beneficial use of his property.

The conditions for a valid grant of an easement of right of way are:
(a) the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables without an adequate outlet to a public highway;
(b) the dominant estate is willing to pay the proper indemnity;
(c) the isolation was not due to the acts of the dominant estate; and,
(d) the right of way being claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate.

These elements were clearly present. The evidence clearly shows that the property of private respondent is hemmed in by the estates of other persons including that of petitioner; that she offered to pay P200.00 per square meter for her right of way as agreed between her and petitioner; that she did not cause the isolation of her property; that the right of way is the least prejudicial to the servient estate. These facts are confirmed in the ocular inspection report of the clerk of court, more so that the trial court itself declared that “[t]he said properties of Antonio Quimen which were purchased by plaintiff Yolanda Quimen Oliveros were totally isolated from the public highway and there appears an imperative need for an easement of right of way to the public highway.

2) Article 650 of the NCC explicitly states that “the easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.”

The criterion of least prejudice to the servient estate must prevail over the criterion of shortest distance although this is a matter of judicial appreciation. When the easement may be established on any of several tenements surrounding the dominant estate, the one where the way is shortest and will cause the least damage should be chosen. However, as elsewhere stated, if these two (2) circumstances do not concur in a single tenement, the way which will cause the least damage should be used, even if it will not be the shortest.

TC’s findings:
> Yolanda’s property was situated at the back of her father’s property and held that there existed an available space of about 19m long which could conveniently serve as a right of way between the boundary line and the house of Yolanda’ s father
> The vacant space ended at the left back of the store which was made of strong materials
> Which explained why Yolanda requested a detour to the lot of Anastacia and cut an opening of one (1) meter wide and five (5) meters long to serve as her right of way to the public highway.

CA’s finding:
> The proposed right of way of Yolanda, which is 1m wide and 5m long at the extreme right of Anastacia’s property will cause the least prejudice and/or damage as compared to the suggested passage through the property of Yolanda’ s father which would mean destroying the sari-sari store made of strong materials.

Absent any showing that these findings and conclusion are devoid of factual support in the records, or are so glaringly erroneous, the SC accepts and adopts them. As between a right of way that would demolish a store of strong materials to provide egress to a public highway, and another right of way which although longer will only require an avocado tree to be cut down, the second alternative should be preferred.